Letters to the Editor

SGB Explains Funding Decisions, Encourages Student Involvement

To the Editor:
We would, first of all, like to thank Chris Kulawik for his February 27 column, “Of Student Funds and the FEC.” We, the Student Governing Board, recently posted our entire budget online in keeping with our philosophy of total transparency and accountability to our member groups. We did this fully anticipating that many of our groups would find much to criticize, but as we said in the “Fun with Funds” slide show on our Web site, “[T]his isn’t our money. It’s student money, and students have a right to see how it is being spent... [E]ither we made that decision with good reason, in which case we can explain it and hopefully convince any dissatisfied groups, or we made it capriciously, in which case we deserve to be found out and chased out of office.”
In his column, Mr. Kulawik took the time to examine our budget and point out the flaws as he saw them. This is exactly the response we had hoped to elicit, and we hope that others will put in a similar effort to improve the way the SGB is run.
That said, of course, he raises what appear to be serious issues, and we are writing here today to explain them. The main problem that Mr. Kulawik sees is the relatively small amount of funding that conservative groups receive on campus. As he points out, the College Republicans receive $1,525, the College Libertarians receive $350, and the Conservative Club receives $100. Their sum, $1,975, is less than 2 percent of the money we allocate to student groups, and is not reflective of the actual amount of conservative activity on campus.
To understand why this is so, it is necessary to understand a little bit about how the SGB allocates funds. As is explained in our “Guide to Funding,” available at the SGB website, each year in the spring, every SGB group is required to submit a budget packet outlining how much money they believe they will need in the following year. The SGB reviews these packets and attempts to give every group as close to their request as possible, with financial constraints and the feasibility of the proposed programming taken into account. Almost no group ever gets exactly what they request, simply because the SGB is a relatively poor governing board and we are forced to weigh the needs of many deserving groups against each other.
Last year, the College Republicans submitted a request for what would have been the largest budget they had ever had: $1,525. Knowing full well that conservative groups had historically been financially constrained on campus, the SGB allocated them a budget of exactly this size. Neither the College Libertarians nor the Conservative Club submitted a budget request, and, therefore, by the SGB Rules, initially received no allocation.
In the fall of each year, every SGB group has the right to appeal to the SGB if they feel that the budget they received was inadequate to their needs. The Conservative Club appealed and requested $100. The SGB, using the same reasoning it had used with the College Republicans, allocated them the full amount. The College Libertarians appealed as well, requesting a full-size budget, but were constrained by the fact that they had not had any budget at all for the past several years. According to the SGB rules, any newly-funded group can receive no more than $350 for their first funded year. As such, the Libertarians received a $350 budget, and were made eligible to receive far more in future years. The College Republicans chose not to appeal.
The second problem Mr. Kulawik sees is a co-sponsorship the SGB gave to the College Democrats for a campaign trip to Kentucky this past fall. He alleges that this co-sponsorship violates the University Rules, which prohibit partisan spending. As these are University Rules, not SGB rules, we have relied on the administration to ensure that all of our groups’ activities are within legal bounds. The College Democrats’ advisers, like the SGB, have seen no cause for concern, as no University money is going to any candidate, and the trip’s purpose is for the benefit and education of the students involved.
We hope that this explanation is satisfying to anyone who was concerned about an ideological bias in our funding procedures. Hopefully, the SGB can serve as an example, and shortly everyone else will embrace complete transparency and accountability. We have nothing to hide, as we hope is true for all other governing boards and student councils. Just as Mr. Kulawik saw problems with the SGB, we are certain that others would appreciate the opportunity to examine the finances of all other governing bodies on campus.
We urge anyone who is interested to look over the SGB’s budget and rules at our Web site http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sgb. Even more importantly, we urge anyone who has concerns to come to our Town Hall meeting on Monday, March 31 and run for election to the SGB Executive Board, where they can have a direct impact on funding decisions. You can contact us with any questions or comments you may have at sgb@columbia.edu.

Jon Siegel, CC ’08
Chair of the SGB, on behalf of the SGB
March 2, 2008

GSSC Spring Gala Fails to Meet Expectations, Repeats Honors

To the Editor:
Re: “GS Honors Students, Alum at Annual Gala” (March 3). Thanks to non-refundable tickets and a horse-and-pony show that did not begin until after I purchased my ticket in January, I wound up sitting in a corner of Low Rotunda sipping a Beachcomber and thinking I would rather be studying for exams. Although I was glad to see many of the familiar faces, the General Studies Spring Gala was far less grand than the GSSC promised. Honestly, it did not bother me that there were only three drink tickets per person or that, instead of an adult dinner, the GSSC thought I would like to share my plate with 249 other people. I have only one thing to say here—flu season. I could have even shrugged off the financial concerns surrounding the GSSC for one night.
But the awards ceremony crammed into the middle of the Gala appalled me. It is not that Christopher Riano and Mike Gravel do not deserve awards, but honoring people who have already been honored and making a huge spectacle of the affair is tantamount to showboating. Want to impress me? Honor someone that continues to serve the community despite their own situation and little or no limelight.
Yesterday, a communication from the GSSC slithered into my inbox with its slogan of “The Show Must Go On,” which read like an excuse for the Gala’s shortcomings. I feel cheated out of my money and my time—especially the three hours of watching the GSSC pat itself on the back. At the very least, I know better than to waste the effort next year.

Wendy Dickinson GS ’11
March 3, 2008

BC Eating Disorders Team Reiterates Commitment to Treatment, Outreach

To the Editor:
I was concerned to read, in “Eating Disorders at Barnard Lead to Student, Admin Rift” (March 3), that any student felt discouraged from seeking help for an eating disorder at the Furman Counseling Center.
Initiating treatment for an eating disorder requires tremendous courage and trust in one’s treatment professionals. Treatment is often uncomfortable and challenging, but when successful, it does nothing short of changing the entire trajectory of a patient’s life.
Barnard College has an eating disorders treatment team, consisting of Julia Sheehy, Ph.D., coordinator, Eating Disorders Treatment Team; Marjorie Seidenfeld, M.D., medical director of Health Services; Karen Winkler, Ph.D., M.S., R.N., director of Well-Woman., and Tara Ostrowe-Sneag, RD, Health Services Nutritionist. The existence of the team reflects the college’s acknowledgment of eating disorders as a serious concern to our students and one worthy of considerable resources. The team does outreach and offers students comprehensive and intensive short-term treatment. Every student who seeks our services receives them, and we routinely refer students to off-campus treatment as well.
The sole mission of the Eating Disorders Treatment Team is to help students nourish and regard themselves in ways that allow for optimal functioning in all spheres. We are heartened by the women we’ve successfully treated and are always looking for ways in which to improve the program. In this vein, we welcome direct feedback from any student who has not felt well cared for by us.
We also applaud the hard work accomplished by student groups such as SADD to increase awareness on campus of eating disorders. Our door is always open to collaboration with students, both during Eating Disorders Awareness Week and beyond. Student groups and teams of professionals have distinct offerings, and may work both separately and collectively—our aims are the same.

Julia Sheehy, Ph.D.
Associate Director/Training Director
Rosemary Furman Counseling Center
Barnard College
March 4, 2008